Muriel Newman

Democracy Under Attack

DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK

By Dr Muriel Newman

NZCPR Weekly:

Democracy has been described as a ‘fragile flower’. Indeed it is, and it’s something we take for granted because our relatively young society has not yet experienced its collapse. But it’s that complacency along with a naive assumption that serious social disorder could never really happen here, that has created opportunities for those who seek to undermine democracy for their own personal gratification and enrichment.

The sad truth is that we have allowed those who want to subvert democracy to have a free reign.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator retired Judge and former university law lecturer Anthony Willy, outlines what’s been going on:

“Until the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 the business of territorial local authorities was conducted by the elected representatives of the citizens living in the particular area. That is no longer the case. Henceforth councils will be required to share their statutory powers with self-selected, unelected entities. This marks the end of democratic local government in New Zealand for the obvious reason that the elected members are no longer sovereign but must take account of the wishes of the self-selected group none of whom will be required to submit to the ballot box.”

Anthony is, of course, referring to the consequences of the back-room political deal making  between the National and Maori parties earlier this year to unilaterally pass their ‘Mana Whakahono a Rohe’ agreements into law in such a way as to deny all public consultation and avoid any scrutiny by the wider public whatsoever.

By National’s own admission, the new powers that they granted are significant.  They will elevate any number of Maori tribal and family groups into positions of partnership with their local authorities for “plan-making, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws, regulations and other council statutory responsibilities” – including over fresh water.

Anthony goes on to say, “Given that the activities of local authorities play an increasingly important role in our lives this has the potential for far reaching consequences. No longer will the contents of the district plans which control all important aspects of land and water use, and any activities involving discharges to the atmosphere, be arrived at with the consent and input of the occupants of the district, but they will become subject to the wishes of unelected groups.”

He further explains, “Democracy has fathered a notion of equal importance and that is the ‘Rule of Law’. This is a lawyer’s construct and little discussed or even understood by the general public. It involves the simple imperative that laws enacted by our democratically elected government will be applied equally to all irrespective of creed, colour or social circumstance. The combination of democratic government and the rule of law are the twin pillars on which all of our freedoms rest. Without the support of both pillars the house cannot stand. Absent either of these foundations, the liberties  we hold dear cannot survive and one of the competing forms of government will come back to haunt us.”

In legislating Maori tribal groups into the status of an elite ruling class that is totally unaccountable to the public, the National Party has undermined the Rule of Law in New Zealand and corrupted democracy as we know it.

It’s fair to ask, how on earth it could have got to this stage – has the nation been asleep while iwi leaders have been advancing their sovereignty agenda?

While the iwi agenda has not been secret, it has not been entirely open either. Much of their manoeuvring has been carried out under the guise of helping disadvantaged Maori. As a result, most New Zealanders have been totally unaware that a long-running and well-planned offensive has been underway.

Some, however, have been trying to raise the alarm for years.

For more than two decades, Professor Elizabeth Rata of Auckland University has warned of the threat being posed by the bicultural movement in New Zealand. She has outlined how a powerful cultural elite from within Maoridom – who were committed to subverting democracy – were positioned inside the State system, to destroy it from within.

According to Professor Rata, biculturalism arose in the seventies, driven by left wing activists who were seeking an alternative to traditional class politics.

What they found, of course, was cultural Marxism – a socialist philosophy originated by a former leader of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, who saw ‘culture’ as the way to win the class struggle. While the traditional battle to ‘liberate’ the working class involved taking control of the ‘economic means of production and distribution’, he focused on controlling the ‘cultural means of production’. His work inspired a literal socialist march through culture-forming institutions such as the media, universities, and churches – enlightening those within about the struggle for social justice by ‘oppressed’ groups in society, centred on race, gender, and sexuality.

Professor Rata explained that many ‘biculturalists’ moved into positions of power and influence in the education and health professions, social services, and government circles, as public servants and politicians, bringing with them their political commitment to the identity politics agenda: “Victimhood was subsequently understood as oppression by colonisation, the patriarchy, and ‘Western’ culture generally – an oppression experienced by ethnic groups, indigenous peoples, women, gays, and religious minorities rather than the capitalist exploitation of working class people.”

Over the years, New Zealanders have been deceived by the bicultural activists, who have claimed that the movement was a means to greater social justice for marginalised Maori. Yet, in reality, it has been used as a Trojan Horse to enable a rich and powerful tribal elite to grow stronger at a cost to disadvantaged Maori, who are little better off today than they were back then.

John Moore, writing on the Liberation blog run by Dr Bryce Edwards of Otago University, has called identity politics an “elitist scam” that enables the state largesse flowing to groups claiming to be marginalised, to end up in the hands of the elites who run the groups, instead of those in need: “Modern social-liberalism – in the form of identity politics – has been exposed as an elitist scam. Gender politics and tino rangatiratanga struggles were all presented as a way to alleviate the poverty, oppression and discrimination of those at the bottom of society. Instead these ideologies have acted to elevate… an elite of those from subjugated sectors of society…”

Professor Rata has also pointed out that while the agenda promoted by biculturalists occurs in the name of social justice, the path to social justice cannot be through ethnic division.

This was reinforced by former US President Barack Obama in 2006, when he said, “Ethnic-based tribal politics has to stop. It is rooted in the bankrupt idea that the goal of politics or business is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to one’s family, tribe, or circle with little regard for the public good. It stifles innovation and fractures the fabric of the society. Instead of opening businesses and engaging in commerce, people come to rely on patronage and payback as a means of advancing. Instead of unifying the country to move forward on solving problems, it divides neighbour from neighbour.”

The reality is that tribalism is an archaic social structure that suits the tribal elite, and no one else. Yet this is what National is supporting through massive state subsidies.

Policies enacted under the tribal ‘by Maori for Maori’ bicultural umbrella have led to separate Maori education systems, Maori university quotas, Maori health care, Maori welfare programmes, Maori housing schemes, and Maori justice programmes. There are Maori government departments and tribunals, Maori-only consultation rights, Maori-only co-governance rights, Maori-only tax rates, and Maori-only charitable status – to name but a few of a vast array of separatist privileges that now exist to support tribalism.

The problem is that the pressure for more tribal power and control is never-ending. Now the Maori Party not only wants to restructure the entire Justice System on “the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi and the foundation of partnership”, but it is also pushing “cultural competency” and a “Maori world view” across the whole of the public sector.

The education system is the latest victim, with cultural competency requirements having become compulsory from 1 July. As a result, all primary and secondary school teachers now have to “Demonstrate a commitment to a bicultural Aotearoa New Zealand” and prioritise “Maori learners as tangata whenua”.

As Professor Barend Vlaardingerbroek explained recently in an article for the NZCPR, “Passive acquiescence won’t do any more: teachers must now be personally committed to this political paradigm. This is where the new standards leave the democratic domain and enter the totalitarian realm. Bang go teachers’ rights as citizens to hold their own opinions without interference. New Zealand teachers are being deprived of a fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy – the right to disagree with ideological dicta promulgated by the political elite. This right is not about letting teachers get away with denigrating or abusing Maori kids, which falls foul of the duty of care and professional ethics. This is about hitting teachers who are actual or potential political dissenters with a stark choice: submit or vacate. And that is enforced ideological conformity – the antithesis of democracy and an infringement of teachers’ internationally acknowledged human rights.”

With there now being a critical shortage of teachers in New Zealand, one can’t help but wonder whether compulsory cultural competency requirements, that requires all teachers to not only swear an allegiance to the Maori sovereignty agenda, but to indoctrinate the children as well, is the straw that is breaking the camel’s back.

It’s all emerging as Professor Rata warned. The bicultural movement was captured by radical Maori separatists who will not stop until Maori control all governance processes – they want to return the country to Maori. “The bicultural movement in New Zealand has been a mistake – it is subverting democracy, erecting ethnic boundaries between Maori and non-Maori, and promoting a cultural elite within Maoridom.”

But she has also warned that there are two sides to biculturalism – the small elite group that are promoting it and the much larger group that is allowing it to happen.

And that’s where our fragile flower of democracy stands today.

So, what of the future and the possibility of a new government come 23 September?

The National Party has already said that if it wins sufficient support it would prefer to enter into another coalition agreement with the Maori Party after the election.

This news will have no doubt caused many former National voters to despair.

Anyone in doubt about the merits of National’s liaison with the Maori Party needs only reflect on the mess that National’s concession to the Maori Party over the foreshore and seabed has caused, whereby hundreds of Maori groups, gifted with millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to fund their opportunistic grab for New Zealand’s coastline, have lodged claims covering every square inch of our coast, many times over, forcing citizens to have to fight to protect our public rights.

Labour, it appears, would be no better as their leader Andrew Little has already said he supports Maori sovereignty. So too does the Green Party, which also wants a new constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi.

That’s also one of the goals of Gareth Morgan’s Opportunities Party – to increase Maori rights and put the Treaty at the heart of all Government affairs.

At this stage the only dissenting voice is that of Winston Peters with his call for a binding referendum of all voters on the future of the Maori seats – which, of course, are the power base of the bicultural movement and their Maori sovereignty agenda.

As the election jostling continues, one can only hope that more political parties will come to recognise the crucial importance of the Rule of Law and Democracy to New Zealanders – and realise that overwhelmingly, Kiwis want to live in a country where all citizens are treated equally.
 

Photo of Alan Duff

Doug Graham: Who has got to him?

Doug Graham: Who has got to him?

By Alan Duff

Published in the Rotorua Review 17 June 2017

There is no sense of remorse, or evidence of a conscience, or awareness of the extent of his public humiliation that will make Tuku Morgan apologise.

So this columnist is not going to waste more breath on him or his foolish political friends, who seem intent on going down with his ship already with just its prow out of the water.

If they sink with him, they’ll know who to blame for their lack of judgement and political cowardice.

Talking of judgement, ex-Justice Minister Doug Graham’s statements that we must all come to terms with there being one law for Maori and another for the rest of New Zealand is about as dunderheaded and “got at” as you can get. Brown men in suits down there in the capital must have got at him. Sly old brown foxes must have turned the hunt on him and made him the pursued.

He’s taken European legal principle and thrown it into the pot cooked up by cunning, self-serving jokers with the gall, the fee-charging effrontery, to call themselves Maori, representing, no-one bothers to check, themselves – a small group of them.

Doug Graham wont go down in history as the man who did so much to settle the long-standing Maori land grievances, not with statements like this. Instead, he’ll be remembered as the white man who sold out his fellow New Zealanders, part-Maori and non-Maori, to a bunch of brown gangsters and their pale brown thugs.

*(He’ll have lots of company in that club – John Key, Nick Smith, Bill English, Chris Finlayson and many others)

Undemocratic

There cannot be one law for Maori and another for the rest. It is undemocratic, divisive in the extreme. And anyway, it’s so stupid when you try to think of its application you would be right to question the intelligence of its advocates like Graham.

What happens to mixed blood marriages and their offspring? What are the children in the eyes of the law – Maori, European, half of each, what? Is my European wife under a separate law from myself?

Are our children, being quarter Maori, about the same percentage as Sir Tipene O’Regan, one or the other? Which part of their anatomy holds the trout-licence exemption? The eyes that spot the fish and think of which fly to tie? Or the hands and arms that cast the rod? Do their European first cousins fish along side them under threat of the law if they don’t have a fishing licence?

Can the law be broken by their mother but not me for the exact same recreational activity and catching fish which are not traditional but introduced? Is Doug Graham the ass the law can sometimes be?

What about our sports teams, say a rugby team? Same citizenry rights, to vote, to go to war, civil freedoms, but under separate law for certain things? Did Doug Graham see none of this when he opened his mouth? Can he really be that blind, that monumentally stupid, not to mention gutless for not standing up to these gangsters, that he fails to see the ramifications for his country? Has he got some sort of an agenda?

Screaming

Most of us are tired of screaming about lazy Maoris wanting money for nothing. Most of us are appalled at seeing Maoris attempt to carve up a state funded Maori television station among themselves while telling us they’re out for our interests.

Education trusts spend the money on paying burgeoning bureaucracy higher and higher salaries and perks, leaving nothing for the education. Tribal trusts blow their iwi’s funds. We’re still arguing four years later over the quarter billion dollar fisheries handout.

But the consultants and lawyers are still being paid. Public funding has become the Maori equivalent to robbery without arms. Hands are all that are needed. Fast ones. Working hard and having a work ethic, is considered dumb.

The best thieves get the most honour. They pin medals on their chests. The rest of Maoridom gets the pie in the sky promises whilst these jokers eat up large here on earth. The message goes out to Maoris that it’s a good thing not to earn money by the sweat of your own brow, just fill out the application form. And kick up brown hell if you get questioned too hard, let along turned down.

Accountants

Every state dollar meant to be thrown at Maori “problems” becomes only a “problem” for the accountants of the brown mafia as to where to channel the dosh. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars meant to help “cure” Maori social woes and all they’ve done is get worse. Any wonder when the money’s not reaching anywhere near the problem.

Maoris now shamelessly kick up when they’re not consulted on every tiny civil matter. They kick up when they lose a legal argument, whine when public funding comes with a demand for accountability. They whine even when it doesn’t because it’s never enough. Neglectful Maori parents – of which the country’s overwhelming majority are Maori – never get it that you have to tell children their existence is wonderful.

They never get it that you have to make sacrifices for your children to advance beyond what you got given. They’ll continue to not get the picture on anything so long as they’ve got politicians like Doug Graham telling them they live under separate laws and rules.

This column is contributed and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Rotorua Review.

*Comment in green added by 1Law4All.

Photo of Casey Costello

An Outstanding Landmark Speech by Casey Costello – Hobson’s Pledge

An Outstanding Landmark Speech by Casey Costello – Hobson’s Pledge

Please read this amazing speech by Casey Costello of Hobson’s Pledge.

BEWARE OF SEPARATISM – WE ARE NEW ZEALANDERS FIRST

by Casey Costello

“He iwi tahi tatou… At this time in New Zealand I don’t think there is a more powerful statement to be made.

Hobson’s Pledge has been established with total commitment to New Zealand’s history of equality – setting precedent for inclusion and unity.

Standing next to Don Brash does of course raise the question as to who I am, on what authority can I speak on such an important issue, and to be honest it is a question I ask myself.

Don Brash is a person who, on top of his personal and professional achivements, has continued to have the conviction, fortitude and integrity to never walk away from any opportunity to support and encourage our nation’s leaders and decision makers.

On top of this he has been consistent and steadfast in his position regarding equality before the law, the founding principle of Hobson’s Pledge Trust.

This consistency in his position has somehow been used as a reason to minimize and negate our message.

Astounding that someone with such a political background has remained steadfast on any issue let alone an issue as important as this.

For my part I am proud to be a spokesperson and my credentials are simple.

I am a New Zealander.

I am so proud of our nation, our place in the world and our melting pot culture.

We are not without our history both good and bad but it is time to focus on our future, on the path that New Zealand is taking in the years ahead.

There are many challenges that face us in terms of housing, protecting our environment, managing our nation’s resources and supporting those in need.

These are issues that impact all New Zealanders and are not peculiar to any ethnicity.

Hobson’s Pledge seeks to highlight the actions that are being taken by our government that undermine the foundations our country was built on – equality, democracy, and unity.

We have reached a point where we are being asked to identify by ethnicity and not citizenship.

I am a New Zealander, a Maori and a descendant of Anglo/Irish settlers who came here in the 1860s but firstly a New Zealander.

We all have our journey that brought us to this country and our unifying factor is our New Zealander citizenship.

Regardless of when we or our ancestors came here we have always known that our citizenship assures us equal recognition and representation before the law.

When I became involved with Hobson’s Pledge I was aware of an increasing level of concern and frustration that exists broadly among New Zealanders in regard to separatist policies that were creating racial division.

Unfortunately this was a subject difficult to discuss for fear of being labelled racist and anti-Maori.

Even when I speak out on this divisive and separatist platform that our government has created it has been suggested that I am a “token”.

I have had my ancestry and credentials as a Maori challenged.

It has even become an issue as to how much Maori I am, apparently percentages count.

To be clear I am here to speak for Hobson’s Pledge as a New Zealander with respect for the Treaty of Waitangi, for all the people that are part of our nation and to protect our legacy of forward thinking inclusive legislation as first demonstrated in the treaty…

He iwi tahi tatou – we are now one people.

But our Government, our nation’s leaders are NOT allowing us to be one people.

We are being delivered separatism and an erosion of our democracy on the basis that this will redress historical issues and achieve an equality that we are expected to accept has not previously been available to Maori.

This is not true.

I have been privileged in my life to be raised at a time where I did not know that Maori ancestry deprived us of an opportunity to succeed, where we were not equal.

When I stood beside my grandfather while he worked his land in Whakapara, no one told me he was poor, that we were disadvantaged.

Despite the fact that, if he was assessed by today’s standards, he would be deemed to be “in need” my grandfather, Honi Pani Tamati Waka Nene Davis, never considered that he was not equal and that he had been prevented from achieving economic prosperity.

What he did know was that he was responsible for his family and he got up every morning and proudly took care of those that depended on him.

Together with my gracious, proud and loving grandmother all their mokopuna were taught their culture and instilled with pride.

We were taught respect, we knew how to show empathy, and we were never in any doubt about how much we had to be grateful for.

When my mother married my father they left Northland to start their family and all six of us were raised in Auckland.

We remained connected with our heritage both Ngapuhi and Anglo/Irish.

Just like so many New Zealanders we knew where we had come from and that there was no limit on what we could become.

And there were no limits… but I suppose the difference was that there was definitely no handouts.

I vividly recall my brother full of teenage arrogance deciding that he would leave school and claim an unemployment benefit.

On finding this out my mother made him pay the money back – no child of hers was going to live on handouts when we were capable of working and succeeding.

I came from a proud heritage and was lucky enough to live in a country where I would not be judged on anything other than my ability and my work ethic.

From leaving school to work in an icecream parlour, through a range of industries, to the Police (leaving as a detective sergeant), vice president of the New Zealand Police Association, to my current position as general manager of a building services company, I have been exposed to a full range of industries and responsibilities and at no time have I ever encountered barriers or restrictions either for my race or my gender.

To go even further I have observed that when in a position of being equally qualified to my peers my ethnicity and gender has been an advantage and I defy anyone to dispute that point.

Never in my lifetime have I seen an instance where being a Maori has been a disadvantage. It has also never been an excuse for lack of achievement.

We are so frequently told that there is a need to make special allowance and extra compensation to those with Maori ancestry because without this we will not see Maori succeed.

This rationale is flawed and any special allowance that is based upon when your ancestors arrived in New Zealand is, at its core, racist and separatist.

For those who try to tell me that this special allowance is needed for Maori to achieve equality then I stand here today to tell you that you insult me, you patronize my heritage and MOST importantly you deprive the generations ahead of us of an inherent belief that anything is possible.

So what has changed from the New Zealand I was raised in to now?
Somewhere along the way Te Tiriti o Waitangi – the Treaty of Waitangi, established to provide equal recognition and opportunity to all New Zealanders – has become the mechanism by which division and disempowerment are the stock in trade.

A runaway train that is gathering momentum channeling increasing amounts of money to frequently self-appointed representatives with virtually no benefit being distributed to those with genuine need.

I defer to the very wise words of Sir Apirana Ngata from a speech he delivered in 1940 –

‘What remains of the treaty of Waitangi? What is there in the treaty that the Maori can today celebrate whole heartedly with you?

‘Let me say one thing. Clause 1 of the Treaty handed over the mana and the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever.

‘That is the outstanding fact today.

‘That but for the shield of the sovereignty handed over to her Majesty and her descendants I doubt whether there would be a free Maori race in New Zealand today.

‘Let me acknowledge further that in the whole of the world I doubt whether any native race has been so well treated by a European people as the Maori of New Zealand.’

I wonder how Sir Apirana would reflect on the situation now.

New Zealand is being divided, the country that was founded on unity and inclusion, the country that was the first to give women the vote, is being divided by a vocal minority that has made it impossible to even have the conversation about the issues of equality and unity without being labelled racist.

Through legislation, policy and process New Zealand is being separated.

I have been told so many times that the reason for the challenges that seem to be confronting Maori is due to grievances that occurred over the last 175 years.

We are asked to believe that Maori are so poorly represented in the all the worst statistics due to racial disadvantage and prejudice.

It is never about poor personal choices and lack of responsibility or accountability.

The strongest message we are bombarded with is that there needs to be a putting “right”, to make amends but this isn’t being done through creating opportunity but through separatist legislation, erosion of our democracy and lastly handing over money without any condition or control on how it should be used.

We fully acknowledge that where it can be established land has been confiscated then compensation should be paid by way of a full and final settlement.

And where are these settlement funds going? Is it being used to support the most vulnerable and in need, has it enhanced prospects for Maori.

Since 1990 over $2 billion has been allocated for settlement and yet this does not seem to be achieving any tangible benefit for Maori.

In fact it seems to be the opposite impact we are being asked to believe things are worse, worse than it was for my grandparents and worse than it was for me.

So for the sake of this elusive equality for those with Maori ancestry we are now eroding our democracy… it seems the more that is given the less is achieved.

It makes me glad that my grandparents are not around to hear Maori leaders promote that it is okay to expect less of Maori; that it is okay to offer no accountability, no responsibility; that it is okay to excuse failure and lack of pride and motivation because of a history that has long since been put right.

The strongest message from so many is that Maori have been failed, deprived, held back. This is not true.

All that is being created by a vocal minority is a demotivating sense of entitlement and mounting resentment.

I am not alone on this, there are many respected and accomplished leaders with a proud Maori ancestry that support this position.

No matter who you are, what your ancestry is, or what country you call home if your Government, if your legislation, if your society continues to send a clear message that you cannot achieve because of some vague, undefined, and frequently imaginary barriers, then you will never achieve. Why would you even try?

I do not stand here claiming there isn’t need, there isn’t poverty, there isn’t social issues but this is not exclusive to any ethnicity.

More and more is being done to ensure that there is not even a suggestion of bias or inequality but we still see Maori being more poorly represented in the worst statistics now than they were 30 years ago.

And yet we still cannot stop and discuss the situation without cries of racism.

I am fully aware of the challenges and often horrific conditions that exist for those in New Zealand who are vulnerable and in need.

I have 14 years of Police service, mostly in South Auckland that gives me the knowledge and first-hand experience to be able to comment on the challenges that face our most vulnerable.

Hobson’s Pledge fully acknowledge that need exists and I believe every society must be judged on how they treat their most vulnerable and most in need.

But need is based upon need, not on ethnicity.

Equal distribution of support is essential and cannot be prioritized based upon race or upon when you or your ancestors arrived in New Zealand.

Maori have succeeded and continue to succeed in academia, arts, business, media, politics.

To continue to claim special representation is needed is patronizing, divisive and counterproductive.

Hiding behind their claims of addressing equality our Government is protecting their alliances and balance of power by making concessions that undermine our democracy and create inequality before the law.

Management of our resources, control of fresh water, Hauraki Gulf, Waikato River, even down to consulting on the use of geographically significant place names… the concessions continue

And yet New Zealanders are still reluctant to speak out for fear of being seen as ignorant and racist… best not to mention that despite all the fancy words, the Emperor is actually naked!

Our Prime Minister has the arrogance and demonstrated contempt for those people who have supported his party to suggest that “New Zealand has moved passed this” – deriding Hobson’s Pledge for its position.

How offensive that he can scoff at a stand for equality and unity while actively endorsing legislation that is dividing New Zealand based on race.

Our strength as a nation will continue to grow through recognizing our diversity, individual accountability, personal responsibility and our foundation of unity: he iwi tahi tatou

We cannot allow the voice of a few to force us into separatism.

I ask you for your support. I ask you to help us send a very clear message that New Zealanders are smarter and more informed than our Government gives us credit for.

Register your support. Give us the numbers to verify the importance of this issue. It is through your support, your donations and your involvement that we can create the Political appetite for change.

In the powerful words of another respected and accomplished Maori leader, Sir Peter Buck:

‘Beware of separatism. The Maori can do anything the Pakeha can do, but in order to achieve this we must all be New Zealanders first.'”

Casey delivered this landmark speech in Tauranga on the 22nd of November, 2016.

Huff and Puff From Whinlayson and all

Huff & Puff From Whinlayson et al

The political party of part-Maoris has, lashed out at NZ First over the way it has wrecked plans to pass five treaty settlement bills at a special sitting of parliament on Friday.

In the media, Whinlayson, Brownlee and Fox were all vocally venting their spleens with Peters responding that they were an unsightly trio of drama queens. Two linked media reports below.

Maori fury over NZ First treaty opposition

Winston Peters in war of words with ‘unsightly trio of drama queens’ over Treaty settlement stoush

What’s really worrying is the hints of corruption in some reported comments from Whinlayson. Viz.

Finlayson had already written to the three iwi who had made travel plans for Wellington, promising to cover their costs for exceptional circumstances. These people are not going to suffer costs as a result, I’ll ensure they’re looked after.

Will you indeed, Whinlayson? How? The idea that he would be personally paying is ludicrous. Whinlayson needs to be open and publicly forthcoming about where he plans to get the money from. If he’s rifling the public purse, then we’ll know . . .

Perhaps some 1Law4All member could invite the media to inquire of Whinlayson where he’s getting the money from and how he’s going to decide just who does and doesn’t get “exceptional circumstances” travel and accommodation booking expenses reimbursed? One thing’s for sure, those decisions will be 100% racist based!

Amongst the weirdest aspects of Whinlayson’s behaviour in all these matters is – despite being a lawyer – he accepts hearsay* from part-Maori as absolute truth.

Earlier this year, the travel plans of a 1Law4All member were disrupted when Parliament went into urgency and the cost of the flights to attend an aborted Select Committee Hearing were wasted.

Could that 1Law4All member be “looked after” by the Treaty Settlements Minister for suffering that travel expense wasted money, perhaps?

Stop laughing!


Media Release from NZ First

Race-based Appointments Inserted In Taranaki Bill

NZ First does not want race-based appointments taking hold in this country, NZ First Leader and Northland MP Rt Hon Winston Peters said today. “New Zealanders should be very concerned about the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill – it hands power to iwi by giving them six decision-making roles on a local authority without being elected.

“This law will force the Taranaki Regional Council to appoint six iwi members, three on the Policy and Planning committee, and three on the Regulatory Functions Committee.
“They will not be elected, but nominated by iwi, need not be subject to an iwi vote, and they will be paid for by the ratepayers.

“This is electoral apartheid. “All this is in Clause 31 of the Bill. “The clause in part comes from the Local Government Act 2002, but this government has changed a critical word which allows for racial preference without an election.

“Instead of stating a local authority “may” appoint people from the outside, it states that the council “must” appoint members nominated by the iwi. This has been done by stealth. “The government and the Maori Party are in cahoots on this.

“The perpetrators have the nerve to slide this under the noses of the people of Taranaki.  “It was New Plymouth that gave a resounding “no” vote to creating a Maori ward on the local council.  “It was a landslide with 83 per cent saying “no”.

“This government told New Zealand it did not want race-based policies either when it campaigned on “Kiwi not iwi”, but it has gone back on its word.  “The country is being steered by National toward race-based appointments. “The extraordinary reaction from the National Party relates to their pique at being found out. “That’s why we voted against this bill in Parliament today, which passed its second reading 108 votes to 12.”


The Manawatu Bill creates an “Advisory Board” to the Manawatu–Wanganui Regional Council to provide advice in relation to freshwater management issues concerning the Manawatu River catchment.

All that’s being revealed bears out the takeover by stealth of NZ’s fresh water by part-Maori interests and their government sycophants. A little here, a little there, until it all theirs and not yours.


∗ Hearsay: when a person asserts what somebody else said, when that somebody else is not available to confirm that assertion to be true.

 

 

 

Key Delegates Water Give-Away

PM Delegates Water Give-Away

by Mike Butler

Prime Minister John Key is moving towards granting preferential water rights to government-created tribal corporations, thus running the risk of losing the support of large swathes of voters who supported the National Party’s previous one-water-law-for-all position.

A report commissioned by the Iwi Leaders Group calling for an equitable, permanent share of water allocations was released today, following a recent Cabinet Paper proposing criteria to give preferential access on a case-by-case basis, to private tribal companies that pay little tax.

Talks between the powerful Iwi Leaders Group and the Government, fronted by Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Environment Minister Nick Smith, are at a critical stage after ministers rejected a nationwide Waterlords settlement along the lines of the outrageous Sealords deal over Maori commercial fishing claims and the Treelords giveaway of Central North Island forestry.

The claim that tribes own the water has no merit and only exists because it has repeated so often that some have started to take it as a fact.

When nineteenth century chiefs sold the large blocks of land, they also sold the water, the trees, everything above the land, and everything below it, according to deeds of land purchases that the Iwi Leaders Group conveniently ignores.

For instance, Deed No. 420 in Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand, by Henry Hanson Turton, for the Upper Waikato Block transaction says that the government paid the people of Ngatimahanga, Ngatitamainu and Ngatihourua £1000 on September 15, 1864, in a sale that included trees, minerals, waters, rivers, lakes, streams, and all appertaining to the said land or beneath the surface of the said land.

That £1000 for an area between the Waipa and Waikato rivers from Ngaruawahia to Lake Taupo, in 1864 would be worth $103,835.86 today, according to the Reserve Bank Inflation calculator.

These were standard deeds used in all transactions of that time.

How has the foolish Key-led government handled this latest opportunistic bid by tribal companies for water ownership? The government:
1. Acknowledges part-Maori interests and rights in freshwater;
2. Argues that the extent and nature of those rights are at issue;
3. Says that no one owns the water;
4. Is ready to delegate to regional councils the politically risky task of allocating water to private tribal companies.

Reference to catchment-by-catchment deals at a regional government level appears in the Cabinet paper already mentioned. The Government may set criteria by which local tribal companies can get preferential access to water on that catchment by catchment basis, Smith says.

Key’s duplicitous position of no one owning the water but regional councils can allocate rights to tribes coincides with central-government-driven bids to set up super councils in three regions: Northland, Hawke’s Bay, and Wellington. Each such super-council plan includes and un-elected and unaccountable part-Maori board plus co-governance tribal-council regional planning committees.

Lawyer James Dunne, a partner in Chen Palmer, warned of a possible uninformed public backlash in light of the controversy over the Foreshore and seabed issue.

There certainly should be a public backlash – unless New Zealanders enjoy being lied to and disadvantaged.

See Stuff Article

Giving away the Foreshore and the Beaches

Giving away the Foreshore and the Beaches

Map 1In Twisting the Treaty, the Marine and Coastal Area Act is described as “the greatest swindle in New Zealand history” and that is exactly how it is turning out. A large part of the North Island (see map) is already under claim by greedy and opportunistic tribal groups. Often led by people who are only one eighth or one sixteenth Maori.

While some claims are decided in secret by the biased Treaty Minister, Christopher Finlayson, others are proceeding through the High Court process.

The secret deals which strip the public of long held rights to our beaches and coast are done without the public having any input or being consulted in any way. To give some semblance of “respectability” to these dirty deals, Finlayson is handing oversight of them (on a jobs for the girls basis) to people from whom he gets the result he wants. People like Judith Potter, a retired High Court judge, whom he is paying with taxpayers’ money to advise him on the Ngati Porou claim on the East Coast. She has shown her bias from the start.

Known for her arrogance, she has carried this unfortunate trait over to her new job as Finlayson’s puppet by refusing to hear any argument against granting customary marine title to tribes from the Council of Outdoor Recreational Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ). That organisation represents tens of thousands of outdoor recreational people whose rights will be adversely affected by any grant of customary marine title that she might recommend.

Not all claims for customary marine title are going through Finlayson’s secret deal negotiations. Some are going through the High Court process – as allowed by the Act. Even here we can see the full extent of Finlayson’s machinations.

When a tribe wants to claim customary marine title through the High Court, it is required by the Marine and Coastal Area Act to insert one advertisement in the Public Notices section of one local daily paper ONCE ONLY. Finlayson sneaked this into the Act so as to keep the public in the dark as much as possible about this massive swindle of their rights. Who reads the Public Notices anyway?

Map 2Thus did a claim for two of the Titi islands, south-west of Stewart Island, get to the High Court without CORANZ or any other organisation becoming aware of it. When CORANZ eventually found out, they applied to become a party to the action so as to protect the public interest (nobody else was going to) but they were rejected for being out of time.

It is not possible for any organisation to read the Public Notices in every daily newspaper every day and so the claim over the Titi islands is more likely to proceed for the lack of opposition to the claim by anyone like CORANZ. It is the traditional role of the Attorney-General to protect the public interest but, as the biased and deeply compromised Treaty Minister Finlayson is also the Attorney-General, the people of New Zealand no longer have a Minister to protect the public interest protection that they have had in the past.

Fortunately CORANZ did become aware of the cheeky and greedy claim to the whole of the foreshore and seabed of the Mahia peninsula (out to 22.2 km at sea) and from Paritu to the mouth of the Nuhaka River. The claim was lodged by the local part-Maori radical, Pauline Tangiora, JP, QSO, QSM, believed to have been born in Woodville and grown up in that area and Palmerston North.

Despite her civil awards, her past actions have included physically trying to stop the pouring of concrete for a public boat ramp and taking the Mahia Boating and Fishing Club to court to try to stop them building their clubhouse. She lost that one and was ordered to pay the club some thousands of dollars in costs. That was several years ago and they have never seen a cent of it. Yet she has the resources to mount an expensive claim as the spokesperson for her adopted coastal tribal group. In other words, she uses the law when it suits her and ignores it when it doesn’t.

By her claim Pauline Tangiora is causing unnecessary racial divisions and much unrest among landowners and local part-Maori, who have got along well together for generations. Furthermore she has only a very small amount of Maori blood and, but for her facial tattoo – presumably to give her some credibility – she could very well pass for a European.

Her claim is completely unjustifiable as the Rongomaiwahine tribe, which she fronts, has NOT had continuing and exclusive use of the foreshore and seabed of the Mahia peninsula as required by the Act in order to get customary marine title. So, in order to protect the public rights of access to the beaches and sea around this peninsula, CORANZ has become a party to oppose the Rongomaiwahine claim in the High Court – as has the Gisborne District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, but the Councils’ resolution to see the matter through is extremely doubtful.

Map 3The case is costing CORANZ a lot of money in legal fees for, as with any complicated civil action, there is a hearing, then more papers, another hearing, and so on.

Here can be seen the full extent of Finlayson’s deviousness as, like his fellow lawyer, Geoffrey Palmer, who allowed claims to the Waitangi Tribunal to go all the way back to 1840, it seems that the greatest reason for the Marine and Coastal Area Act is to make things as complicated as possible so as to create a lawyers’ bonanza – just as Palmer did with hundreds of millions of dollars having gone into the pockets of lawyers from his Treaty process. And lots more to come.

Finlayson has done everything to prevent the public having any say in his theft of the foreshore and seabed. Governments are meant to protect the public interest but this Key government puts private interests – e.g. Sky City and the tribal elite – ahead of the public interest and that is why it is so dangerous.

CORANZ is doing the job that the government should be doing. Its financial resources to pay the continuing legal bills on this one Mahia claim are anything but unlimited and it desperately needs donations so that it can continue to oppose the Rongomaiwahine claim which, if left unopposed, might well succeed in whole or in part even though the tribe does not fulfil the requirements of the Act. These days judges do funny things – e.g. Sian Elias’ disgraceful behaviour in the Ngati Apa case when she deliberately ignored the stated law to indulge her own prejudices.

We have reached a terrible state when a relatively small, private organisation like CORANZ has to uphold the public interest because the government is failing to do so. Worse, in his secret negotiations with tribes who pursue that route rather than through the High Court, Finlayson is doling out to his favoured tribes rights that he has stolen off the public of New Zealand by his thieving and racist Marine and Coastal Area Act

Map 41Law4All is very concerned at this theft of public commons and violation of the public interest for the sake of the racist and separatist agenda of this government. That is why 1Law4All sponsored a public meeting on the matter on 2nd February at the Napier Sailing Club. Dr. Hugh Barr, the secretary of CORANZ and author of the book, The Gathering Storm over the Foreshore and Seabed,  spoke to about 80 people and informed them of the issues.

1Law4All will continue to oppose this Mahia claim on the grounds that it is racist, separatist, thieving and does not meet the requirements of the Act. We strongly urge our members to bring this matter to the attention of as many people as possible. Perhaps even donate to the special account that has been set up by CORANZ for its legal costs and for no other purpose. It is CORANZ Rongomaiwahine Trust Fund Account 03-0566-0207094-26 or cheques to the same fund at CORANZ, P.O. Box 1876, Wellington 6140. This is one thing that we can do to ensure that future generations will have the same rights and enjoyment of the beaches and coast that we have. For now!

The beaches and seabed of our country should belong to all New Zealanders EQUALLY – as they did before Key’s National government descended into the muck of racist politics for selfish and crooked reasons. We are all New Zealanders whatever the colour of our skins or our bloodlines and there is nothing more repugnant than legislation that gives superior rights to people of a particular race or tribe.

We all pay the same taxes, we are all liable for service in war time, so why should people with one particular bloodline in a coastal tribe be given superior rights over other citizens? That is a throwback to the tribalism and feudalism that the chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi to get away from.

If we don’t stand up for our rights and for a democratic and non-racial New Zealand, then we will soon be second class citizens in the land that was built by the sweat and toil of out pioneer forebears.

a photo of the Waitangi Tribunal sitting in a meeting house

The Waitangi Tribunal – A Vote of No Confidence

By Reuben Chapple

Reblogged from NZCPR

a photo of the Waitangi Tribunal sitting in a meeting house

It is widely believed that Waitangi Tribunal Reports issue only after rigorous historical investigation of Treaty claims.

These findings then make their way into media reports, onto Government websites, and percolate throughout our education system as apparently authoritative, objective information.

But what if Tribunal Reports were one-eyed rewrites of New Zealand history and not worth the paper they are printed on?

According to the Waitangi Tribunal’s website:

“The Tribunal consists of a chairperson and up to 20 members that may be appointed at any one time. The chairperson may also appoint a Maori Land Court judge to the position of deputy chairperson. The total membership reflects the partnership [sic] of the Treaty of Waitangi through an approximately equal representation of Maori and Pakeha.

“Tribunal members are appointed … by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs in consultation with the Minister of Justice.

“Members constitute a pool from which tribunals of between three and seven members are drawn to hear claims. The term ‘Waitangi Tribunal’ is used to refer both to the total membership and to the individual Tribunals. Members are appointed to a Tribunal by direction of the chairperson and remain members until the inquiry is completed or they resign.

“Each Tribunal has to have at least one Maori member, although generally around half the members are Maori. Usually, a Tribunal has a kaumatua member and, where it is inquiring into historical matters, at least one historian [sic].”

From this information we can deduce that:

  1. The Tribunal’s underlying premise before it even hears a single claim is that the Treaty of Waitangi created an ongoing racial partnership.
  1. Tribunal members are appointed on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs, so we can safely assume that both Maori and non-Maori members will be Treatyists, and likely to come to the table with strong priors rather than being impartial defenders of the public interest.
  1. It is theoretically possible for all Tribunal members hearing a particular claim to be Maori [by which I mean New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent who have chosen to identify monoculturally as “Maori”]. More commonly, Maori may be a majority of those hearing a particular claim.
  1. Many Maori have multiple hapu and iwi affiliations, making it quite possible for a Tribunal member hearing a particular claim to have direct links to the claimant group.

Indeed, three years into the hearing of the East Coast claim, presiding Judge Stephanie Milroy was obliged to disqualify herself, but only after lawyers for competing claimant groups pointed out that through her Ngati Porou connections, she had interests in five landblocks that were subject to the claim.

We can only speculate as to how many other instances of this kind never came to light.

This directly contravenes the legal principle that “no man shall be the judge of his own case.”

  1. Given that 50 percent of Tribunal members are Treatyist Maori and the claims process is in a broader sense between the Crown and Maori, this marginally more indirectly contravenes the legal principle that “no man shall be the judge of his own case.”

Let’s now examine how the Tribunal works:

  1. Claims are typically heard on the marae of the claimant tribe, hardly a neutral venue. Deliberations are conducted according to Maori protocol. This is likely to prove highly intimidating to non-Maori interested parties seeking to make a representation.
  1. Since the claims process is seen as being between the Crown and Maori, third parties have no automatic right to be heard. They can only be heard with permission, which the Tribunal rarely grants, particularly if opposed by the claimant group.
  1. Evidence is often given in Maori, with no requirement to provide a translation. As well as being a deliberate act of cultural arrogance, this makes it difficult for non-Maori speakers to have input into the hearing process.
  1. Oral evidence is given the same weight as written evidence and is not subject to cross-examination, since according to Maori protocol this is highly disrespectful to a kaumatua. The Tribunal justifies this by asserting that since it is a Tribunal rather than a Court, rigorous evidential standards need not apply.
  1. Claimants are legally aided to the tune of millions of dollars from taxpayers, with no requirement to pay this back if successful in achieving multi-million dollar settlements. This encourages what economists call rent-seeking behaviour, also known as “trying it on because there’s a huge upside if successful and no price paid for being wrong,” not that I can recall a single Tribunal Report finding against the claimants.
  1. Claimant groups have forced historians they have employed to go away under threat of non-payment and sanitise reports of facts that undermine their case.
  1. Those charged with presenting the Crown’s case are supine to say the least. For example, claimants who didn’t sign the Treaty, such as Tainui, Tuhoe, and Tuwharetoa, should have been immediately shown the door. Groups such as Ngai Tahu, Tainui, and Te Atiawa, who’d already received full and final settlements (some, like Ngai Tahu, several times over) legislated for in Acts of Parliament the preambles of which include the words “full and final settlement” should also have been told to talk to the hand.

The Tribunal’s recent assertion that contrary to primary source accounts of what the chiefs said on the lawn at Waitangi, Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty to the Crown, is the latest in a long line of egregious tommyrot to exit this body via the fundament.

Who can forget the Tribunal’s “Holocaust of Taranaki” press release likening the closing down of the Parihaka Commune (in which not a single person lost their life) with the state-sponsored Nazi slaughter of millions of Jews during WWII?

Legendary media critic Brian Priestley MBE, who acted as media adviser for Ngai Tahu when that the tribe’s claim was before the Waitangi Tribunal, had this to say about the Tribunal process:

“Years ago I attended several sessions while advising the Ngai Tahu on public relations for their claims.

“It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth.

“There was no cross-examination.

“Witnesses were treating with sympathetic deference.

“The people putting the Crown’s side of things seemed equally anxious not to offend.

“In three months I don’t think I was asked a single intelligent, awkward question.

“I should have been.”

A number of reputable historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave and Bill Oliver have voiced concerns that the Waitangi Tribunal has become a self-referencing echo chamber for re-writing New Zealand history.

In “The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History,” published in 2004, Victoria University historian Dr Giselle Byrnes lays damning charges against the Tribunal, describing its attempts to write history as a “noble, but ultimately flawed experiment.”

According to Dr Byrnes, the Tribunal is not writing “objective history.” Rather, the reports it produces are deeply political and overwhelmingly focused on the present, in that the Tribunal invariably judges the past by today’s standards rather than those prevailing at the time under scrutiny.

Tribunal history also has a strong Maori bias, Dr Byrnes says. Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha characters and stories. “The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause.”

Other academics share this unease, but reluctant to say anything publicly, Dr Byrnes points out.

“I know that many historians have felt some kind of disquiet about the sort of history the Tribunal has been producing over the past few years. They haven’t spoken out about it because most historians have liberal political leanings and they don’t want to be seen as undermining or criticising the whole process.”

Dr Byrnes also reveals significant concerns about the mass consumption of Tribunal reports by the media and general public. She believes the Tribunal should clearly state its pro-claimant bias, lest lay people reading Tribunal reports be misled.

Ngapuhi kaumatua, David Rankin, a direct descendant of Hone Heke, more recently had this to say about the Tribunal as a nursery for the re-writing of New Zealand history:

“The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along.  A growing number of New Zealand historians are pointing this out, although most of them are labelled as racist for doing so.  Facts are omitted in Tribunal reports, and evidence is shaped in some cases to fit predetermined outcomes.   The bias is so obvious, but most historians are too scared for their careers to question the tribunal’s findings.

“[T]he Tribunal … has turned out to be a body that is bringing in apartheid to New Zealand.  This sounds dramatic, until you see how it advocates for race-based access to certain areas, and race-based management policies for Crown land, and now, twin sovereignty, which constitutionally is worse than anything that happened in South Africa during the apartheid era.

“The Tribunal is a bully.  Go against it, and you will be labelled a racist or worse.”

Clearly, any thinking New Zealander should have absolutely no confidence in anything that comes out of this body.

a photo of Don Brash

Why I disagree with Gareth Morgan

Reblogged from NZCPR

By

a photo of Don Brash

Don Brash

In recent weeks, Gareth Morgan has written several articles for the “New Zealand Herald” promoting his book on the implications of the Treaty of Waitangi for modern New Zealand.  Then a couple of days before Waitangi Day I had a call from David Fisher of the “Herald” telling me that Dr Morgan would be going to the Orewa Rotary Club to give a speech criticising what he called “ignorant Brash-think” about the Treaty.  I made some comments suggesting that I disagreed quite fundamentally with his views and they appeared in the “Herald” the following day.  Later that day, I got a phone call from one of Dr Morgan’s staff (Gareth must have been too busy to call me himself) inviting me to attend the speech and make some comments in reply.  After giving the matter some thought, I accepted the invitation and have no regrets that I did so.

It was obvious that Dr Morgan had chosen the venue for maximum media impact, with my attendance also designed to increase the media appeal.  And there were certainly plenty of media in attendance – arguably as many media people as other audience members.  It turned out that, while we spoke at the premises used by the Orewa Rotary Club, this was not a meeting of the Orewa Rotary Club, which no doubt explains why the audience was so tiny.

Because the “debate” – really a speech by Dr Morgan and a relatively brief reply by me, followed by a small number of questions from the audience – attracted some media attention, I accepted Muriel’s invitation to write a brief piece on why I disagree with Dr Morgan.

Let me first acknowledge that Dr Morgan and I agree on some issues.  He is opposed to separate Maori electorates, Maori wards in local government (and by implication the Maori Statutory Board in Auckland) and quotas for Maori in educational institutions.  Granting any group special rights is contrary to Article 3 of the Treaty he believes, and I totally agree with that.

Having these special rights is also patronising, and implies that Maori aren’t quite competent enough to have their voices heard in the political arena, or get into some university courses, without a special leg up.  Of course that is nonsense: when I was in Parliament, there were 21 Maori in Parliament – roughly the same percentage of Maori Members of Parliament as Maori are in the wider population – only seven of them elected in the Maori electorates.  The other 14 were elected in general constituencies or were placed in a winnable position on a party’s list.  (Ironically, the person who chaired our debate in Orewa personified that fact – she was Georgina Beyer, herself Maori, who won the rural electorate of Wairarapa for the Labour Party in competition with Paul Henry.)

Similarly in Auckland: the first election of councillors after the super-city was established in 2010 saw three people of Maori descent elected – not in Maori wards but on their own merit – and again three Maori out of a total of 20 councillors meant that Maori on the Council were in roughly the same proportion as Maori in the general population.

But as explained in his recent Ngapuhi speech, Dr Morgan’s basic position seems to be that –

“.. the Treaty is whatever a reasonable person’s view of the following four taken together leads them to – not any one taken in isolation, but all taken together:

1)      Treaty of Waitangi
2)      Te Tiriti O Waitangi
3)      Principles of the Treaty
4)      Post-1975 Consensus on the Treaty.”

And I think that that is nonsense.  The so-called principles of the Treaty have often been referred to, frequently in legislation, but have never to my knowledge been fully explained, let alone agreed.  And to refer to a “post-1975 consensus on the Treaty” is again a meaningless concept – I know of no such consensus, and the whole reason for the ongoing debate is that there is no consensus about what the Treaty means, or should mean.

In one of his “Herald” articles Dr Morgan talked about Maori having a partnership with the Crown, making us, in his words, “one nation, two peoples”.  I also think this is nonsense, Lord Cooke notwithstanding.  The idea that Governor Hobson envisaged the British Crown – the representation of the most advanced country in the world at the time – forming a partnership with a disparate group of Maori chiefs who were, at that time, scarcely out of the Stone Age, is ludicrous.  Moreover, to speak of New Zealand in 2015 being “two peoples” is equally silly: the overwhelming majority of people who identify as Maori also have some non-Maori ancestors, frequently a non-Maori parent, while “non-Maori” are no longer exclusively European but embrace a very wide range of ethnicities.

So I disagree with Dr Morgan’s starting point, and as a result I disagree with many of his conclusions.

I think making the teaching of te reo compulsory in primary school, as he advocates, would be a complete waste of valuable teaching time for most New Zealand children, many of whom can’t even read and write well in English – which is not just the dominant language of New Zealand but is also the dominant language of the whole world.  Being able to read and write in English is of fundamental importance to all New Zealanders, whatever their ancestry.  And yes, there may be merits in terms of brain development in learning a second language at an early age, but if a second language is to be learnt it should be one which would be of benefit in the wider world, such as Mandarin or Spanish.  (Interestingly, I took part in a Maori TV programme a few years ago, on a panel of six people discussing whether te reo should be a compulsory subject in primary school.  Even though I was the only non-Maori on the panel, the panel voted by clear majority against making the teaching of te reo compulsory.)  Of course if resources were infinite – so that we could teach te reo without crowding out anything else in the school curriculum – then why not learn a whole bunch of languages?  But as an economist Dr Morgan should know better than most that resources are not infinite: teaching te reo would have an opportunity cost – something else would have to drop out of the curriculum.

The idea of having an Upper House with 50% of its members being Maori, which Dr Morgan also advocates, strikes me as utterly absurd, and totally at odds with any concept of democracy.

Many of our problems today stem from the way in which Te Tiriti O Waitangi – the real Treaty, which Maori chiefs signed – has been reinterpreted to suit the desires of modern-day revisionists.  But its meaning is totally unambiguous.

The first clause involved Maori chiefs ceding sovereignty to the British Crown, completely and forever.  And there can be not the slightest doubt about that.  That Maori chiefs understood that at the time is abundantly clear from the speeches made by the chiefs themselves, both those in favour of signing and those opposed to it.  This was further confirmed by a large number of chiefs at the Kohimarama Conference in 1860, and confirmed again by Sir Apirana Ngata in 1920.

The third article of the Treaty provided that all Maori – “tangata Maori, katoa o Nu Tirani” – should receive full citizenship rights – and this included the many slaves of other Maori, most being held in abject conditions and often the victims of cannibal feasts.  Today, we tend to see this clause as no big deal but in 1840 it was an extraordinary thing for the Queen’s representatives to offer – nothing similar happened for the Australian aborigines, or the American Indians.   All Maori, no matter their status, were offered the “rights and privileges of British subjects”, putting them on a par with every other British subject – not, it may be noted, ahead of other British subjects but on a par with them.

The second clause is what has caused so much angst.  Actually, the clause is redundant since all it does is guarantee the right of citizens to own private property, and British subjects have this right anyway.   But note that the guarantee was made to all the people of New Zealand – “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” – in clear distinction to the third article which specifically applied only to Maori – and “all” means “all”.  In other words, rights of ownership were guaranteed to all New Zealanders, not just to those with one or more Maori ancestors.

There is ongoing debate about what “tino rangatiratanga” meant at the time but it is impossible to believe it meant what modern-day revisionists try to take it to mean.  Why on earth would Hobson have asked Maori chiefs to sign a Treaty involving the complete cession of sovereignty in the first clause if the second clause contradicted that first clause?

Let me say that I have always supported the payment of compensation by the Crown to any New Zealander, Maori or non-Maori, who can establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that their property has been illegally confiscated by the Crown.  There are clearly suspicions that some of the claims which have been settled in recent times have in fact been settled on several previous occasions, and that brings the settlement process into disrepute.  But in principle nobody can object to the Crown paying compensation to any New Zealander whose property has been illegally confiscated.

So in summary, I like the Treaty: it is a very simple document recording the cession of sovereignty by the Maori chiefs who signed it; extending to them in return the full rights of British subjects; and guaranteeing to all New Zealanders the right to own property.

But it does not require us all to learn te reo; it does not provide for separate Maori electorates or Maori wards; it does not give Maori a power to veto RMA resource consents; it does not give Maori any preferential rights over natural resources; and it certainly provides no basis for an Upper House with half its members being Maori.

Another Wearying and Woeful Waitangi Day

Another Wearying & Woeful Waitangi Day

 

kiwis_today

There seems to be no end to the brain- or brown-washing of NZ. It just keeps coming, like a seismic wave of thoroughly well informed self-interest, ignorance and sophistry. Read the PM’s speech excerpt below.

Ground control to PM Key: the Treaty of Waitangi contains:

NO mention of any “principles”

NO mention of a “partnership”

NO mention of “forests”

NO mention of “fisheries”

cartoon

Wake up and smell the parchment, Key, Finlayson, et al. The Treaty of Waitangi is no more a living document than any other Treaty. Just read the damned two-paragraph preamble, so expeditiously overlooked most everywhere, including Te Papa, our national storehouse of treaty fabrications.

Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving; And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.

Reality Check Essential

Once signed, a contract or treaty binds the signatories. End of story. Litigation on interpretation is possible. Renunciation is possible. But changing the words is not. Nor is arguing that a word scribed in a contract or treaty hundreds of years ago should be interpreted in today’s meaning. Lexical drift is a well known phenomena. It would be fatuous to pretend today that Fred Flinstone’s fifty-plus-year-old cartoon strip jingle “gay old time” meant a consorting group of homosexuals.

Critical Thinking Needed

The Treaty of Waitangi has – in and of itself – no validity in law, whether NZ law or international law. It can be part of New Zealand law ONLY by virtue of some Act of Parliament that says that any part of the Treaty applies.

The Prime Minister has pushed his agenda in his Waitangi speech at the upper marae on the Treaty grounds.

Mr Key said while the Treaty is a formal agreement, it must be interpreted over time and adapted accordingly.

He acknowledged the challenges Maori faced in the century after the Treaty was signed, as the Crown ignored many of its agreements.

“The spirit of generosity with which Maori entered into this partnership was forgotten or ignored by many over the following decades,” he said. “But the Treaty partnership we commemorate today acknowledges the bonds that have underpinned the creation of a special country.”

“The Treaty settlement process may not be to everyone’s satisfactions, but I’m a firm believer in the current process, which is addressing the wrongs done in the past to help Maori build their futures.”

“I am confident the next 25 years will deliver more promises, passion and achievements as we work together to tackle the challenges that will be thrown at us.”

What a load of codswallop!

Wake up New Zealand and smell the dozers:

cartoon

 

$370m Treaty ‘Pool’ for Hawke’s Bay

$370m Treaty ‘Pool’ for Hawke’s Bay

Hawke’s Bay Today

22 December, 2014

Treaty settlements totalling about $370 million will bring “a formidable addition to the capital pool” available for investment in Hawke’s Bay, says the head of one of the largest settlement groups. David Tipene-Leach, the chairman of He Toa Takitini, says his group’s vision is to become a “major investor in our regional economy” using the $100 million-plus Crown settlement it is due to begin receiving from next year.


“Crown settlement” means you – the NZ taxpayer – pays and – from bitter experience – we know that no “Crown settlement” is ever full and final, no matter that it is called as such!

1 2 3 4
%d bloggers like this: